The 2026 FIFA World Cup shows that sport is closely linked to global politics. Co-hosted by the USA, Canada and Mexico, it is the first World Cup to feature 48 teams and is expected to attract a global television audience of over five billion people. FIFA estimates the tournament could generate around $41 billion in economic activity, making it a significant political and economic event as well as a sporting one.
The tournament is a clear example of globalisation. Culturally, it connects billions of people through shared media consumption and international travel. Around 23% of players at the 2026 World Cup were born outside the countries they represent, highlighting the impact of migration and transnational identities. Economically, the World Cup depends on global flows of capital, labour and services. Multinational corporations invest billions in sponsorship, broadcasters pay vast sums for media rights, and host cities compete for tourism and investment.
The World Cup also demonstrates the importance of soft power. By hosting the tournament, the USA, Canada and Mexico can project an image of prosperity, competence and cultural influence. However, soft power can be damaged. During the 2026 tournament, concerns have been raised about high ticket-prices, empty seats and the impact of stricter US immigration and visa policies. Human rights groups warned that travel restrictions and enhanced border controls could prevent some fans, journalists and officials from blacklisted countries from attending, potentially undermining the image of openness that American hosts wish to project.
The World Cup also illustrates the darker side of soft power through sportswashing. Critics argued that the 2018 World Cup in Russia helped divert attention from restrictions on political opposition, press freedom and LGBTQ+ rights under Vladimir Putin. Similarly, Qatar’s hosting of the 2022 World Cup attracted criticism over the treatment of migrant workers, the kafala sponsorship system (often described as modern slavery), restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights and limits on freedom of expression. In both cases, critics argued that governments used the tournament to improve their international image despite ongoing human rights concerns.
Liberals argue that international institutions such as FIFA promote cooperation and shared norms. The successful organisation of a tournament across three countries demonstrates extensive international collaboration. Realists, however, see states pursuing national interests. Hosting the World Cup brings prestige, investment and influence, making it a valuable source of international power.